Key Takeaway
MVAIC fails to prove lack of no-fault coverage eligibility and seeks indefinite interest tolling in medical provider reimbursement case, raising questions about litigation tactics.
The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) serves as New York’s insurer of last resort for no-fault benefits when other coverage cannot be identified. However, MVAIC frequently contests claims by arguing that patients had other available coverage, shifting the burden of proof to medical providers seeking reimbursement.
In no-fault litigation, interest and attorney fees can accumulate significantly over time, making the question of when interest begins to accrue critically important for both providers and insurers. When MVAIC cannot establish that alternative coverage existed, courts must determine whether statutory interest should be tolled indefinitely or begin accruing from specific procedural milestones.
The case of Hilda-Bloor Medical highlights a common scenario where MVAIC seeks reimbursement disputes while simultaneously requesting that interest obligations be suspended indefinitely. This strategy raises important questions about litigation tactics and whether parties should bear responsibility for delays in congested court systems.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Hilda-Bloor Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 2013 NY Slip Op 50382(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2013)
“Defendant failed to submit any competent proof establishing that plaintiff’s assignor was not qualified to receive no-fault benefits (see Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 81 AD3d 223, 229 ; Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 ). Nor did defendant show that plaintiff was required to “exhaust its remedies” prior to commencing this action”
…
“In the event it is determined that the cited tolling provision is applicable, the result would be the accrual of interest from the commencement date of the action and not, as defendant would have it, a complete moratorium on the payment of interest”
I like the theory that interest should toll indefinitely, and perhaps one who knowingly places a case into a court with rampant congestion should be charged with some of the accrued interest. It is not as if the defendant placed the case into Bronx Civil court, where matters get adjourned forever…
Key Takeaway
Courts reject MVAIC’s attempts to completely eliminate interest obligations when the insurer fails to prove alternative coverage existed. Even when tolling provisions apply, interest typically accrues from the lawsuit’s commencement date rather than being suspended indefinitely, ensuring medical providers receive appropriate compensation for delayed payments.
